PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “POLIOVIRUS VACCINE, ORAL”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

Vaccination with inactivated poliovirus vaccine and oral poliovirus vaccine in Denmark.

In Denmark a polio vaccination program including both inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) and oral poliovirus vaccine ( OPV ) has been in use since 1968. Three injections of IPV are given when the children are five, six, and 15 months of age. Subsequently, three vaccinations with trivalent OPV are administered at the age of three, four, and five years. The acceptance rate is high-93%-98%-and greater than 95% of the population has antibodies to poliovirus. The geometric mean titer of serum antibodies is much greater than 10 IU for all three types. The epidemiology of poliomyelitis and the background for the development of the present vaccination schedule are reviewed.

Antibodies, Viral↗

Comparison of inactivated poliovirus vaccine and oral poliovirus vaccine programs in Israel.

In spite of high vaccination coverage, paralytic poliomyelitis still occurs in Israel, either in sporadic form in the urban area or in small outbreaks in the rural, non-Jewish segment. At high risk are mainly very young infants, not yet protected by poliovirus vaccine and children who have failed to seroconvert after a full course of oral poliovirus vaccine ( OPV ). In these circumstances, a new program for vaccination of young infants early in life with a quadruple vaccine containing inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) and diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccines (DTP) has been tested. Administration of two doses of IPV up to the age of three and one-half months followed by a booster at the age of 10 months has produced a very satisfactory antibody response (100% seroconversion and high geometric mean titers of antibody to the three antigens), which has occurred early in life and persisted up to two years after booster. This response was similar to that observed after four doses of trivalent OPV ( TOPV ) reinforced with one dose of monovalent type 1 OPV . Two doses of the quadruple vaccine have also induced an antibody response to pertussis antigen in greater than 90% of the infants. After booster, a greater than 99% conversion rate has been recorded, which has remained unchanged at one year of follow-up. The above data have led to the modification of the poliovirus vaccination schedule in the areas at risk.

Antibodies, Viral↗

The humoral immune response to type 1 oral poliovirus vaccine in children previously immunized with enhanced potency inactivated poliovirus vaccine or live oral poliovirus vaccine.

Sixty-one children who had previously received three doses of enhanced potency inactivated poliovirus vaccine (epIPV) at 2, 4, and 18 months of age and 56 children who had previously received oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) according to the same schedule were challenged with a single dose of monovalent, type 1 oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV1) between 19 and 52 months of age. Before the OPV1 challenge, the previously epIPV-immunized recipients had a geometric mean poliovirus type 1 microneutralization antibody titer (geometric mean titer [GMT]) of 11.1 IU, which was significantly higher than the prechallenge GMT of 2.2 IU among the children who had previously received OPV. Three weeks after the OPV1 challenge, the GMTs for the epIPV-immunized recipients and the OPV-immunized recipients were 35.3 IU and 5.1 IU, respectively. For the epIPV-immunized recipients, both the prechallenge GMT and the postchallenge GMT were dependent on the D antigen content of the vaccine that they had previously received. A fourfold or greater rise in poliovirus type 1 antibody occurred after the OPV1 challenge in 50.9% of the epIPV-immunized children and in 28.6% of the OPV-immunized children; this difference was statistically significant. For both groups, antibody boosts were inversely correlated with the pre-challenge serum antibody titer. However, the epIPV-immunized children consistently were more likely to boost than the OPV-immunized children at equivalent levels of prechallenge antibody. This experience indicated that OPV1 administration effectively raises the level of serum antibody in children previously immunized with three doses of epIPV, especially in children with lower levels of preexisting antibody. This booster response was superior to the booster response of children who received three doses of OPV.

Antibodies, Viral↗

Sequential use of inactivated poliovirus vaccine followed by oral poliovirus vaccine in Oman.

Seroprevalence and geometric mean titers (GMTs) were compared at 6 and 10 months after vaccination with monovalent type 1 oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) at 6 months and trivalent OPV at 7 and 9 months. Group 1 had received 4 doses of OPV, group 2 OPV at birth and 3 doses of OPV and inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV), and group 3 placebo at birth and 3 doses of IPV. A total of 547 infants completed the study. At 10 months, seroprevalence to poliovirus type 1 was 98%, 99%, and 98% in groups 1, 2, and 3; 100%, 100%, and 98% to poliovirus type 2; and 80%, 96%, and 91% to poliovirus type 3. Differences in seroprevalence among the groups were significant for poliovirus type 3 (P < .001). Between 6 and 10 months, significant increases in seroprevalence and GMTs occurred for poliovirus type 1 but not for types 2 and 3. Two OPV doses following 3 IPV doses did not significantly increase seroprevalence or raise GMTs for poliovirus types 2 and 3; however, significant increases were found for poliovirus type 1, which may have benefitted from monovalent type 1 administration.

Antibodies, Viral↗

Poliomyelitis prevention in the United States: introduction of a sequential vaccination schedule of inactivated poliovirus vaccine followed by oral poliovirus vaccine. Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)

These revised recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) replace recommendations on poliomyelitis issued in 1982 and 1987, and present a new ACIP poliovirus vaccination policy that increases reliance on inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV). This change in policy is the most substantive since the introduction of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) in 1961. ACIP has determined that the risk-benefit ratio associated with the exclusive use of OPV for routine immunization has changed because of rapid progress in global polio eradication efforts. In particular, the relative benefits of OPV to the U.S. population have diminished because of the elimination of wild-virus-associated poliomyelitis in the Western Hemisphere and the reduced threat of poliovirus importation into the United States. The risk for vaccine-associated poliomyelitis caused by OPV is now judged less acceptable because of the diminished risk for wild-virus-associated disease (indigenous or imported). Consequently, ACIP recommends a transition policy that will increase use of IPV and decrease use of OPV during the next 3-5 years. The revised recommendations include three options for poliovirus vaccination, all of which meet acceptable standards of care: sequential vaccination with IPV followed by OPV, OPV alone, or IPV alone. For overall public health benefit, ACIP recommends a sequential vaccination schedule of two doses of IPV followed by two doses of OPV for routine childhood vaccination. Vaccination schedules that include OPV alone or IPV alone are also acceptable and are preferred in some situations (e.g., IPV alone is recommended for children who are immunosuppressed; OPV alone is preferred for children who begin the primary vaccination schedule after 6 months of age). Implementation of these recommendations should reduce the risk for vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis and facilitate a transition to exclusive use of IPV following further progress in global polio eradication.

Adult↗

Surveillance for poliovirus vaccine adverse events, 1991 to 1998: impact of a sequential vaccination schedule of inactivated poliovirus vaccine followed by oral poliovirus vaccine.

BACKGROUND: The elimination of wild-virus-associated poliomyelitis in the Western Hemisphere in 1991 and rapid progress in global polio eradication efforts changed the risk-benefit ratio associated with the exclusive use of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) for routine immunization. These changes, plus the November 1987 development of an enhanced-potency inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV), which poses no risk of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP), resulted in a change in polio immunization policy in the United States. In September 1996, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that IPV replace OPV for the first 2 doses in a sequential poliovirus vaccine schedule. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a passive surveillance system for adverse events after receipt of any US-licensed vaccine, is used to monitor postlicensure vaccine safety. Postlicensure surveillance of vaccines is important to identify new, rare, or delayed-onset adverse reactions not detected in prelicensure clinical trials or when new vaccine schedules are adopted. Through continual monitoring of adverse events and identification of potential vaccine risks, VAERS can serve as an important resource to ensure continued public acceptance of vaccines. We compared VAERS reports after the receipt of IPV to reports after OPV in infants from 1991 through 1998. Comparisons included reports listing IPV and OPV coadministered with other vaccines. METHODS: Annual reporting rates per 100 000 doses distributed within 3 severity categories (fatal, nonfatal serious, less serious) were examined. Distributions of severity categories by vaccine type, age, and time period (pre- and postrecommendation) were constructed. Safety profiles (distribution of 21 symptom groupings) for IPV and OPV reports were compared. Analysis was restricted to reports for infants 1 to 3 months old and 4 to 6 months old, corresponding generally to first- and second-dose recipients. Any notable increase in a severity or safety category for IPV compared with OPV was followed up by examining the frequency of specific symptoms, reporting source, and date of vaccination. An important limitation of VAERS is that reports do not necessarily represent adverse events caused by vaccines. In many cases, the events are temporal associations only. RESULTS: The annual rates of VAERS reports per 100 000 vaccine doses distributed by severity category, 1991 to 1998, were in general similar for reports after IPV compared with those after OPV. The reporting rates for poliovirus vaccine did not increase materially with the shift to IPV usage. The relative frequencies of symptoms in the fatal and nonfatal serious categories for 1998 vaccine administrations were similar to 1997 reports. Severity profiles for IPV and OPV reports in infants 1 to 3 months old and 4 to 6 months old, corresponding to first- and second-dose recipients, were remarkably similar. The frequency of symptoms listed on IPV reports categorized as fatal or serious was examined by age, vaccine combinations, and time period, and the distribution of symptoms was similar for ages 1 to 3 months and 4 to 6 months. In the postrecommendation period, the 10 most frequent symptoms reported with IPV were also reported with OPV in either similar or lower relative frequency. During the postrecommendation period, safety profiles for infants 4 to 6 months old showed a 2.5% higher proportion in the allergic reaction category for IPV than for OPV, but none of the allergic reaction reports indicated anaphylaxis. In general, the distribution of symptom groupings was not markedly different for IPV compared with OPV. No cases of VAPP were reported after the administration of IPV, whereas 5 VAPP cases were reported after the administration of OPV. CONCLUSIONS: Although VAERS is subject to the limitations of most passive surveillance systems, the large number of reports and national coverage provide a unique database for monitoring vaccine safety. There was a marked increase of IPV reports in VAERS after 1996, consistent with implementation of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendation for the sequential IPV/OPV poliovirus vaccination schedule. Given the increased use of IPV, a review of potential adverse events in VAERS compared IPV with OPV reports both before and after the introduction of the sequential vaccination schedule. Vaccine safety surveillance indicated no adverse events patterns of potential concern following the use of IPV in infants after the introduction of the sequential vaccination schedule. Ongoing surveillance is documenting a decrease in VAPP. These findings provide useful information to support the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendation, made in 1999, to shift to an all-IPV schedule.

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems↗

Simultaneous administration of rhesus rotavirus vaccine and oral poliovirus vaccine: immunogenicity and reactogenicity.

Rotavirus vaccine could be administered most efficiently if it were incorporated into routine childhood immunizations and did not interfere with the immune response to the other vaccines, principally oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV). We conducted a placebo-controlled randomized trial giving oral rhesus rotavirus vaccine (RRV) (strain MMU 18006) alone and together with a child's first dose of OPV and diphtheria-tetanus toxoids-pertussis to examine the possible interaction of these vaccines. A total of 102 infants 2 to 3 months of age were randomized into 3 groups to receive (1) RRV with OPV, (2) placebo with OPV and (3) RRV 2 weeks after OPV. All infants were given diphtheria-tetanus toxoids-pertussis. Serum samples were collected at the time of OPV immunization and 3 to 5 weeks later. Three to 5 weeks after OPV immunization 60% of infants had a 4-fold rise in neutralization titer to at least one of the three poliovirus serotypes. The rate of antibody response to poliovirus did not differ by RRV groups but a lower rate was correlated with a shorter interval (3 vs. 5 weeks) between OPV vaccination and antibody measurement. Fifty-six percent of infants had a 4-fold rise of IgA and 62% had a 4-fold rise of neutralizing antibody to RRV; this rise did not differ according to time of OPV immunization. RRV was not associated with side effects and may be safely given with OPV to infants 2 to 3 months of age.

Antibodies, Viral↗

Childhood immunizations: position on the enhanced inactivated poliovirus vaccine and live attenuated oral poliovirus vaccine dilemma.

Recent review of the polio vaccines (live attenuated oral poliovirus vaccine [OPV] and enhanced inactivated poliovirus vaccine [eIPV]) for children has generated much debate between infectious disease experts and public health officials. Poliomyelitis was a common medical condition in the 1940s and 1950s, and the success of OPV in eradicating poliomyelitis from the United States and even the Western hemisphere cannot be disputed. However, the adverse condition of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) has been reported in eight to nine cases per year as a result of exclusively using OPV in the United States. The dilemma has been how to continue the elimination of wild-type poliovirus paralytic poliomyelitis in the United States and worldwide while minimizing the occurrence of VAPP. Clinical trials have supported that eIPV and OPV provide similar protection for humoral immunity. However, OPV provides superior gastrointestinal immunity, which is a public health benefit for vulnerable populations. Recommendations among experts have concluded that the sequential eIPV/OPV is the preferred schedule, with eIPV only or OPV only as alternative equally acceptable schedules. Therefore, factors such as cost, compliance, and access to health care must be considered by parents and providers when selecting a polio vaccine regimen, especially among underserved populations.

Age Factors↗

Poliomyelitis prevention: recommendations for use of inactivated poliovirus vaccine and live oral poliovirus vaccine. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Infectious Diseases.

A change in the recommendations for routine immunization of children is indicated because of the reduced risk of exposure to wild-type polio viruses and the continued occurrence of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis after oral polio vaccine (OPV). All children should receive four doses of vaccine before the child enters school. Regimens of sequential inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) and OPV, IPV only, or OPV only are acceptable. Each regimen has advantages and disadvantages. In special circumstances, one of the regimens is preferred or recommended. Because logistical problems with the current childhood immunization schedule may make these new recommendations difficult to implement immediately, their adoption likely will be gradual. Nevertheless, assuming continued progress toward global eradication and the development of new combination products, the routine use of an IPV-only regimen is likely to become desirable and feasible in future years.

Humans↗

Humoral and mucosal immunity in infants induced by three sequential inactivated poliovirus vaccine-live attenuated oral poliovirus vaccine immunization schedules. Baltimore Area Polio Vaccine Study Group.

The relative immunity induced by sequential administration of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) produced in human diploid cells and live attenuated oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) was evaluated by randomization of 510 infants to receive IPV and OPV sequentially according to one of three experimental schedules, IPV only, or OPV only. The antibody response to two IPV doses was lower than expected. However, for each of the IPV-OPV sequential schedules, the first OPV dose significantly enhanced seroconversion rates and geometric mean microneutralization antibody titers. Three months after the final dose, 96%-99%, 99%-100%, and 81%-100% of infants had antibodies to poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3, respectively, and subjects with two or more prior OPV doses were significantly less likely than those with none or one prior OPV dose to excrete virus in feces after an OPV challenge. Sequential IPV-OPV immunization is now recommended for routine use in the United States. The optimal schedule consists of two IPV doses followed by two OPV doses.

Antibodies, Viral↗

Comparison of enhanced potency inactivated poliovirus vaccine (EIPV) versus standard oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) in Thai infants.

Enhanced potency inactivated poliovirus vaccine (EIPV), combined with diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) vaccine, was compared with oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) regarding immunogenicity in Thai infants, vaccinated at 2, 4 and 6 months of age. EIPV induced significantly higher seroconversion rates than OPV to all 3 poliovirus types after the second and third immunization. After 3 doses of each vaccine, at 7 months of age, all infants receiving EIPV proved seropositive for poliovirus type 1, type 2 and type 3 neutralizing antibodies, whereas of those receiving OPV, 9% remained seronegative (titre < 1:4) for type 1 (p = 0.0042) and 11% for type 3 (p = 0.0013). All participating children were given an additional dose of OPV at the age of 9 months and tested again at 12 months of age. At that point, virtually all infants had poliovirus neutralizing antibodies, but the geometric mean titres to each poliovirus type were significantly higher in the vaccinees who had received EIPV. It is concluded that the greater immunogenicity of EIPV vis-à-vis 3 doses of OPV may be biologically significant for protection against poliovirus types 1 and 3 in countries where cases of poliomyelitis occur in young children. These findings warrant considering EIPV, alone or in combination with OPV, for an immunization programme in Thailand and similar countries in the future.

Antibodies, Viral↗

Simultaneous administration of oral rhesus-human reassortant tetravalent (RRV-TV) rotavirus vaccine and oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) in Thai infants.

Rhesus-human reassortant tetravalent (RRV-TV) oral rotavirus vaccine was given at the same time as oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) or inactivated parenteral poliovirus vaccine (IPV) to Thai infants at 2, 4 and 6 months of age. Sera for rotavirus antibody studies were taken prior to and one month after each vaccination. After the first dose of vaccine at 2 months of age, 37% of the infants receiving rotavirus vaccine with IPV but only 10% of those receiving it with OPV showed a seroconversion by rotavirus IgA ELISA antibody test (p < 0.001). Likewise, neutralizing antibody seroconversion rates in initially seronegative subjects to rhesus rotavirus type 3 (RRV-3) after the first dose of RRV-TV vaccine were higher if the vaccine was given with IPV (74%) than if given with OPV (39%) (p = 0.0069). After the second and third doses of vaccine, the rotavirus IgA ELISA and RRV-3-neutralizing antibody response rates were not different between groups. Development of neutralizing antibodies to human rotavirus serotypes 1, 2 and 4 in the first seven months of life in vaccinees receiving rotavirus vaccine with OPV tended to occur at a lower rate than in those receiving rotavirus vaccine with IPV but the antibody levels were not significantly different at 7 months of age. Poliovirus type 2 and type 3 antibody responses were not different in infants receiving the rotavirus vaccine with OPV as compared with infants receiving only OPV. The mean poliovirus type 1 antibody level was slightly but not significantly lower at 5 and 7 months of age in infants that received both rotavirus vaccine and OPV.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Administration, Oral↗

[Development of an alternative method to the monkey neurovirulence test for oral poliovirus vaccines]

Each oral poliovirus vaccine lot contains attenuated and small amounts of wildtype viruses. Vaccines containing more than a certain limit of wildtype viruses may cause a vaccine associated poliomyelitis. To provide safe vaccines for humans, each newly manufactured vaccine lot is tested in the monkey neurovirulence test. A certain point mutation on the poliovirus genome has been shown to be responsible for the attenuated phenotype of the vaccine virus. We developed a quantitative PCR method to determine the wildtype proportion at position 472 of poliovirus type 3 genome. This method possibly can be used as an alternative for the monkey neurovirulence test.

Journal Article↗